On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> > wrote:
<snip> >> I personally think that the exit criteria are good as they are (in >> hindsight, Abdera is a good example of a project that graduated with >> barely enough diversity of active committers), so if we do want to >> make the Incubator "work faster" my suggestion would be to start by >> raising our entry criteria. One way to do that would be to start >> requiring the three mentors to show higher levels of personal >> commitment than what we currently ask for. > > And would Subversion qualify ?? Just kidding... > > We could do both #1 and #2 ... and then there might be a bunch of > 'stale' ones that we retire. And with a smaller number of incubating > projects, there should be more time for mentors on each one, > addressing your #3. my experience tells me that it's hard to guess which projects are going to struggle. so tightening the entry criteria may prevent community led projects being admitted without an improvement in incubator throughput. i'm not sure that loosening the entry criteria is a good idea either: they give corporations incentives to play our game our way. if graduation came to be seen as less difficult then there would be less incentive for corporations to invest in community building in the incubator. IMHO the main issue is that now the process works fine for large closed source donations (which covers the majority of podlings), the IPMC has stopped developing the process IMHO the next logical step is to break down graduation into a track with several modular votes based on the criteria the IPMC has developed for graduation. this should give a more finely grained idea of where a podling is and would allow immediate approval of steps for some podlings. for example, AIUI subversion already uses open development so that could be approved right away (whereas this is usually the most difficult criterion for podlings which a start as close source projects). releases are a good example. the auditing that is done when the first release is presented could be done as three steps of the track (license audit, source audit and artifact audit). only once all steps were complete would a podling to allowed to submit a release for official IPMC approval. using a track would allow a more linear progression. at the moment, there's a lot of work setting up the podling and getting things moving. getting release approval and passing community is difficult so most podlings drift along for quite a while once the initial effort is over. breaking down these big, difficult tasks into a number of smaller ones may make them more approachable. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
